Microsoft Applies For Patent On Private Browsing 181
PhilDEE writes "Microsoft is in the process of applying for two patents for a private browsing mode in their next version of Internet Explorer — a feature already present in Safari, among other browsers."
Patenting the absence of something? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original CERN WWW browser didn't keep cookies, didn't maintain a history, and didn't cache pages. Is that therefore prior art?
Then again, my coffee cup does none of those things either - it doesn't even browse Web pages. Now *that*'s privacy...
How can you patent the absence of a feature (or more accurately, disabling a feature)?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Insightful)
The trademark identifies the manufacturer, and their reputation gives me an indication of the quality of hidden components. If it's a Sony, it'll probably hold up for a while - if it's an apparently-identical Daewoo, it'll probably die the day after the warranty runs out.
Your point about common words and colors is valid, but that just means there needs to be better inspection, auditing, and reexamination procedures - not that trademarks aren't good in general.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not be so black and white: Patents AND trademarks can be very good; it's just that they've been abused to the point that they've gone way beyond their original purpose.
When an organization can get a patent on a drug it developed that no one else could (and yes this happens a lot), a patent is good.
When an organization can patent a long-known remedy or long-used functionality, that is very, very bad.
When an organization can keep others from selling fake versions of its products as if they were the real thing, that is good.
When that organization uses trademark law to keep ANYONE from making unapproved references to it (like when Ford sues to stop publication of the Black Mustang Club's calendar even if it has a disclaimer saying it's not an official Ford product) that is very, very bad.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PROXOMITRON did it first (Score:3, Insightful)
What's new?
The fact that you're using WinME???
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Score:3, Insightful)
Why BBC would translate trademark->patent for no apparent reason is a good question though.
A single government agency [uspto.gov] handles U.S. patents and U.S. trademarks. Might that have something to do with it?
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents==Bad and subject to prior art.
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art.
Patents & Trademarks == Good
Patent & Trademark Abuse == Bad
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this doesn't help poor people in the countries where those drugs are made, but there are often government or private monies available to help those people.
Where the system becomes crappy for U.S. taxpayers is that drugs are often designed using massive government subsidies and/or grant-funded research. So the government ends up being billed twice -- once for the research to help create the drug, and again in Medicare or other programs to help people afford it.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not they cannot. Certainly a watch can have a phone function. Yellow(tm) would sue the telephone maker into oblivion.
And what if Yellow(tm) decided to come out with a line of hats with a built in watch? Or even just a "hat clip" for their watch?
Ahh.. like apple (fruit) Apple (computers and music players and now phones) And Apple (Records).. One is a fruit, another sells consumer electronics,and the other publishes music, and so long as Apple consumer electronics don't get into the music business, everything is ok..
Oops.....